@DanaRohrabacher can you please tell me from where you are getting your info re climate science?
@donpedrodepedo motives not important. accuracy of argument & significance of policy being advocated should be focus of decision making
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher but if criticism of gw proponents is that of cherry picking and modifying data (not interested in sound science) isn't... -
@donpedrodepedo that cherry picking language is arrogantly used 2 draw attention away from specific examples of inaccuracy, fraud & error.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher it clear there are non science-based motivations. Just trying to figure out benefit of pushing gw -
@donpedrodepedo focus on merits of arguments not motive of one arguing the case. All this attempt to distract from lack of substance -
@DanaRohrabacher not arrogance at all. Referencing rutan's report. Shows several instances where ipcc modified graphs to make their case ... -
@donpedrodepedo challenging specific assertion, like pointing out CO2 spike comes after warming. general dismissal arrogant & unscientific -
@DanaRohrabacher I'm not dismissing point. Like I said earlier: I'm reading rutan's report but just had a side question about motive
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.